Forum:Signature policy
Category:Stickied threads Okay, so without wishing to be a spoilsport, there's something that I think needs to be said. The purpose of a user's signature is to identify that they made the post. Therefore, we should discourage signatures that don't make it clear who is posting. I've some other concerns as well, mainly relating to formatting, which I'll address in a moment. Now, I hate pointing the finger and making an example of one person, but I'm afraid one does spring to mind. Chezrush has used all of the following in the last four months: *Chezrush *MatrixGod *MaximusAwesomus *Maximu5awes0meu5 *Boot to da head yo *I am the wizard its me * Homestuck Hotshot This is quite frankly absurd, and not at all conducive to identifying the poster. Therefore, I propose a simple guideline for the text content of a sig: it must be either the username, or at the very least, something extremely similar to the username, or the user's Chumhandle; if they have more than one, it should be their main one. As a rule, the actual username would be the preferred option unless, like mine, the chumhandle is very similar. Also crucial is that whatever the name presented by the sig is, it must include a link to the userpage. Now, I'm all for a little personal flair, provided it doesn't impair the intended function of a signature. So as long as the above guidelines are followed, there aren't many other restrictions. However, there are certain formatting possibilities where I think we should perhaps draw the line. The most notable one is that sigs may contain images, but not too many, and furthermore, because text line height is 15px, no signature should be taller than 15px. This includes the heights of images or divs. So with these guidelines in mind, I will now (with apologies once again) deconstruct Chezrush's signatures. And to contrast, here are some customised signatures that demonstrate individuality without impairing identifiability or overdoing it on visual formatting: :Ryūlóng (竜龍) ::Simple, but with a bit of colour. The non-latin text is acceptable because it's for the talk page link, i.e. the username isn't being obscured. :experimentalDeity ::Established chumhandle, which is acceptable. Not ideal, to be blunt, but certainly acceptable. :Octachor n ::The animation pushes it a little, but it's a small image and isn't too intrusive. :Jimclo ''' ::Plain text, username (and also chumhandle), but with some tidy colours and formats. Nothing flashy. :skaiarorNetbody''' ::I would have to concede that my own sig is perhaps approaching the limit on fancy formats, although the text glow effect doesn't alter the line height, and isn't intrusive. The text is my chumhandle, which is also extremely similar to my username, so that's fine. Naturally, all of this is only a proposal. It may not be a big deal at the moment, but it could become one, and it's the kind of thing that may be better to nip in the bud. It's not about being restrictive, just about keeping priorities straight and bearing in mind what the actual purpose of signatures is. Obviously, suggestions and discussion are very welcome I seriously wish I had not taught him how to fiddle with his sig now. experimentalDeity 20:49, April 14, 2012 (UTC) Also, how is it not ideal? experimentalDeity 20:54, April 14, 2012 (UTC) ::I guess back to Chezrush it is. User:Chezrush